Talk:Bastion-class Airship
In order to give a convincing explanation for this device, I modestly suggest you that when writing its history you should talk that the mandinko president was abducted by an alien race and once they met him, they fell madly in love with him becouse of his affable and atractive personalily. Then, they decided to give him as a present all the blueprints of their advanced technology. However, it is a little strange that if a real aircraftcarrier costs between 5 and 10 billion, a fighter costs more than 100 million dollars and your invention only 700. Are 700 millions earth US dollars or 700 millions extraterrestrial dollars? This is a provocation lol --BIPU 09:17, May 4, 2012 (UTC) This. This. And this. Unless those aliens like every leader in FW, I could care less. Though the idea is interesting. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 09:23, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :As you can see, Mandinka is not the only nation that grew with the help of alliens. All the stuff you have linked, with the exception of fusion bombs that are a reality, is as extrange as yours. Yes, FW was once a time a mad place where people thought that Future meant opposit to the laws of physics. The difference is that you are writing this now and I was not in FW when thy wrote their stuff. .) :Anyway, dont worrly, I´m not going to bother you with my comments. I will try to avoid reading your stuff articles :) --BIPU 10:00, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :: Excellent. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 10:05, May 4, 2012 (UTC) : By the way, 2.5 billion yen equals $41 million dollars in American money. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 09:25, May 4, 2012 (UTC) : When you say more than $100 million dollars, are you talking about the expensive American jets, or the dirt cheap Russian and Chinese ones? Because from what I recall reading, a Su-27 costs $30 million per unit... --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 09:31, May 4, 2012 (UTC) ::A SU-27 is a bird that can fly, but no more than fly. THIS is a fighter and cost $200 million.--BIPU 10:00, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :::So the Su-27, which has been built all over the world for dozens of air forces, is completely useless in combat? So you saying that spending $200 million on an expensive jet fighter that can be shot down by a $30 million jet fighter that can be mass-produced is much better? Okay then. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 10:05, May 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::A fighter is "per se" a delicate thing that can be shot down easily even for a group of birds. If you hit a fighter with a missile, you will destroy it without taking care of its cost or the technology it uses. But... are you going to hit a F-35 with a missile from a Su-27? Maybe... but if I have to be I will give 9 agains 1 for the F-35. It is easy to build a machine able to fly but it is very very difficult to give it the extraordinary avionics and electronic tech that change a plane to a lethal machine. ::::If you are going to bomb unarmed civilians in the jungles of Brazil, the Su will be perfect for you but if you plan to engage in combat with some other modern nations you should think in some changes.--BIPU 10:15, May 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::Its a very difficult job trying to shoot down 680 Su-2zs with only 63 F-35s. If it was one-on-one, unless that Su pilot is an ace, he's gonna lose. But have five, ten, fifteen Su-27s fighting a single F-35? A Su can fight, that's why their still building them. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 10:25, May 4, 2012 (UTC) : Oh, you do know that the wealthier countries don't want to buy the "real" fighter, simply because it cost too stinkin' much. Japan and Canada have stated they may not purchase the F-35 because of the up-front cost, and Norway is concerned about the $764 million bucks they'd have to pay just to MAINTAIN the jets. The Su-27 on the otherhand is easy to maintain, repair, and armed. Plus, they are far easier to pilot than the expensive F-35 your wooing over. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 10:09, May 4, 2012 (UTC) ::If they cant afford them it is easy to understand they dont want it but this does not mean that Su27 is a better plane.--BIPU 10:16, May 4, 2012 (UTC) : Also, the Su-27 outnumbers the F-35 10-to-1. :::The Citroen C4 outnumbers the Mercedes CLK and this not become the citroen C4 in a better car then the Mercedes CLK.--BIPU 10:15, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :no. But in the end, which is easier to replace, build, and use. The Tiger tank was far superior to any other tank in WW2, but it was heavily outnumber, difficult to build, and too costly to efficent. In the end, the Tiger was outmatch because of it's quality. Quality comes and goes, but quantity never changes. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 10:20, May 4, 2012 (UTC) ::Agree with the fact tha is better for a nation to have 100 SUs than 20 F-35 but If you change number to 100 - 60 I will prefer 60 F-35. Ask the Iraqui air force about its russian stuff. And... yes... I will use russian stuff in DDR but this is an OOG discussion. :) ::Anyway, the discussion about fighters doesnt mean that your artifact was not a madness.--BIPU 10:27, May 4, 2012 (UTC) Saddam Hussein got rid of the Iraqi Air Force. Most of it had been buried under the sand on purpose, and the Iraqis couldn't compete in the air because there were too few air craft left, their money for repairs had been withdrawn, and they had lost their most experienced pilots in 1991. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 10:52, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :Oh yes.... 1991... do you remember who did Iraq fight against?--BIPU 11:07, May 4, 2012 (UTC) no -swm no the airships or no to the war. In any case, 1. I too agree that these airships are much too advanced for 2007 (or 2012 for that matter). 2. The US spearheaded a coalition that included western European nations, Canada (i think) and a couple Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia. And they picked of the most powerful force in the Middle East as if nothing, kinda like the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. HORTON11: • 13:24, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :Please allow me to direct your attention to this Horton. Same time, same tech, only differnce is that one is powered differently, and mine cost more. I mean really, Skandanavia has robot soldiers, East Asia has flying warships and drone launchers, and Everett's got completely functional fusion power. Oh and let's not forget Yarphei's weather changing technonolgy and the ASA's clone army. Heck, the rules even say you can have this tech. Either change the other nations to set the example you want, or bug off. I've noticed that every time I make something similar to what the other nations have, BIPU calls it out, and someone finds something wrong with it. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 15:54, May 4, 2012 (UTC) My clone army will be operational by 2029. You can confront me about it then. We are not picking on you, but we have to begin somewhere in the effort to make this "game" more realistic. You are the new player so we are trying to polish your nation before you get too involved. UP won't get rid of his droids which I also find disgustingly unrealistic, and I imagine Scandinavia's robot army as consisting of robots which already exist today. We are trying to help. Don't be so defensive. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 15:58, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :I'm not being defensive. I just want something other than T-65s and human waves. But, if for the sake of the peace, would moving the date to 2017 be better? Because I don't want to delete the article... --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 16:05, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :I'd rather you move it into the 2020s and to FWNG. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 16:06, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :That aerial platform belongs in FWNG or on the seas cause realistically we should only allow aircraft carriers to launch planes. And about the fusion power, it may seem unrealistic but take into account that Everett is in the top two most advance nations in FW. And irl the US migh even be already working on that. Look, I read in the news that the US was selling a super-advanced stealth ship from the 80s and the American public didn't know about if for over 10 years, so Everett may indeed be capable of developing fusion. HORTON11: • 16:45, May 4, 2012 (UTC) But fusion power is still unreliable today, and Everett has it in huge amounts. That's like the U.S. Transitioning from oil usage to wind power in a month, and then having every item running on completely clean energy. It's impossible. It requires too much labor, money, and resources, which is exactly why if we could do it, we would have years ago. Now you've got me sounding like BIPU! --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 17:13, May 4, 2012 (UTC) Their usage and dependence of fusion to power their every needs is unrealitsic. In Europa I have largely transitioned to green energy, but that has been the result of decades of work, research and investment. Everett doesn't have 10 years yet, and atm I don't see the US (irl and a futuristic version) being able to achieve this degree of usage. HORTON11: • 17:21, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :Thank you. Nuclear energy is more realistic and can easily satisify any energy demands. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 18:09, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :The best solution to meeting energy demands are BIPU's hydrogen technology and BG100, cause really who would want to see nuclear capability in the hands of an unstable and dangerous nation. Even in the US and Japan which are highly industrialized there have been several nuclear incidents which have not been good. HORTON11: • 20:12, May 4, 2012 (UTC) ::Green energy is expensive.... very expensive. I live in a country that is paying the idiot policies about green energy that an stupid green-leftish government has achieved, and I am paying the electricity more expensive than my french neigbors that use 70% of their electricity fron fision reactors. This is the reality. :In FW, I use "green coal plants" that are a reality in their technical aspect but that cant be used widely in the real world becouse of its elevated costs of construction and operations. It is similar for your algae tech. Technicaly it can be feasible but it is far from being economically profitable. ::In my opinion, and similar to what Horton says, we could set that after several years of investigation this kind of technologies can be widely used by SOME nations of FW. Economic cost of goods and stuff (the lack of) is one of the more serious problems of FW.--BIPU 20:51, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :Mandinka's unstable?! --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 20:24, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :You never know. Africa has always been a magnet for coups, Civil Wars and lots of racial nad religious fighting. But I wasn't just referring to Mandinka, I had Iran in mind, and the west (especially Israel) don't want them with anything nuclear. In the 80s they destroyed Iraq's West German built nuclear plant, so keep this in mind if planning to acquire nuclear weapons, under the pretext of peaceful energy or not. HORTON11: • 20:35, May 4, 2012 (UTC) Uh, Mandinka already has nukes. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 20:46, May 4, 2012 (UTC) How can an African nation have them? I don't even have them and my country is one of the top nations of Europe. But if South Africa had (or supposedly had them) then maybe Mandink could, but not in the numbers in which the US or Soviets had. HORTON11: • 20:52, May 4, 2012 (UTC) For the same reason South Africa had them. They developed them. And Mandinka only has 130 of them. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 21:10, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :Wait, you thought I had more than the US or Russia? XD --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 21:12, May 4, 2012 (UTC) ::Today, in 2012 is not very difficult to have nukes. It continue being very difficult to build a missile able to launch them thousand of kilometres away. In military terms, tactical nukes are no very difficult to get but strategical nukes are. I see Mandinka able to have tactical nukes.--BIPU 21:39, May 4, 2012 (UTC) Do you know what is in my opinion the "realism" problem of Mandinka? If you have a look to african history of the last 50 years, you can see war... war.... war... tribal war... colonialist war... more war.... genocides..... child-soldiers.... more war.... rape.... more war..... and finally poverty, starvation, middle age technology, etc. FW started in 1950, so you could have changed the african history with development, democracy, peace, international investment, trade, education, welfare..... The problem is that you have chosen to have the tradicional african history of war and blood but you have stated that the results of this policy are technology, wealth, superpower military capabilities, etc. and this is not real. You cant chose one way and claim to get the goal of another one.--BIPU 21:39, May 4, 2012 (UTC) You mean the same policies that every major government has gone through too? Africa isn't poor because of it's wars. Its poor because Europe held it back from developing. Read what Belgium did to the Congo. They killed most of the population and used the survivors as slave labor. When the nation became independent, it too few educated citizens to manage it. If you look at Ghana, while the British didn't develop it, it had enough learned leaders to manage it properly. War doesn't destroy nations (cause if that were the case, Russia wouldn't exist), poor leadership does. Look at Nazi Germany. After WW1, hyper-inflation and civil strife held it back. However, Hitler and his murderous underlings brought it back into the rank of superpower, because they were good leaders. You keep saying "Mandinka can't be powerful because its evil". But if you actually READ its history, it became so only TEN, read it, TEN years ago. Up until 2001, West Africa had no major wars, corruption, or unrest. And even after that, your using Mandinka's policies as an excuse for it not to have any power. War, murder, and rape. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, China, Japan, the U.S., Mexico, Italy, India, Libya, and Venezuela all did the EXACT SAME THING, yet none of them suffered because of it. Germany waged a war against the whole world, yet its people had one of the highest standards of living up until D-Day. The Soviet Union killed tens of millions of it's own people, yet it's citizens rivaled the Americans in wealth. War and violence doesn't destroy a country. Heck, war saved the U.S. during the Second World War. If war and violence is destroying nations, then why hasn't America fallen yet? Also, what you've appearently forgotten is that war created the British Empire, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and lead to them all becoming very wealthy and very powerful. War doesn't destroy nations. Heck, war is the reason Yarphei is thriving. Go pester the author of that nation. Its the people running them that do. We've been fighting in multiple wars, spending billions, and yet, we're all doing just fine. So I'll say this one last time. Read the history of Mandinka before you open your mouth, or do what you said, and don't read my articles. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 22:20, May 4, 2012 (UTC)